Nice to see liberals acting like conseratives

[woolfe9998]

So you are telling me we have a person posting here who is functionally illiterate and never learned to think and he deserves to be gang raped for that? What the fuck happened to pity? And what about his chickens? Are they better off bring cared for by an MIT professor. Gardens bloom around people who love plants. I never met a smart plant. I spent a lot of my life loathing stupid people because of what I imagined they did to me and a lot of that leaked out. I woke up one day when an old man I admired told me I had no respect. It made me feel ashamed. If you don't like coddling then let me tell you that you should feel ashamed too. When you set yourself apart you create the other.

Think whatever you like about TH. I have no idea what you're on about his raising chickens. Evidently he respects animals a lot more than he respects certain human beings. Here is what he once said about transgenders in the military:

Would you let someone who thinks he is a dog serve in the military? Let him/her dress in a dog suit and go around barking at people?

Or would you tell that person they are not a dog and go get some help?

yet when a man or woman thinks they are the opposite sex we are supposed to accept it?

I'm sorry, but I just can't see my way clear to pity him. I know you think he, and everyone else, are entirely products of circumstances beyond our control, but I also believe that people do make choices. He chooses to bombard himself with false and hateful rhetoric, chooses not to educate himself, and ultimately, he chooses to post the garbage he does on this board, while he should know what is expected when you post incoherent nonsense on any internet discussion forum where you aren't preaching to the choir.

I think his "chickens" are coming home to roost.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You don't get to paint lefties as marxists, and then pretend you right winger shaven't been destroying civilizations for corporate profits.

And chucking gays off buildings is what Saudis do. And your big man Trump is a Saudi fanboy.

Your opinion of gays is pretty obvious and they aren't the only ones.

 

[urvile]

This thread is a thing of beauty. How do you gang rape an OP that is either a troll or one of the stupidest people who has ever lived. On an anonymous internet forum? It literally makes no sense. I also fail to see what tajbots homosexual fetish has to do with anything either.

Great thread though.

 

[MajinCry]

Your opinion of gays is pretty obvious and they aren't the only ones.

Oh, don't worry, I have no issues with homosexuals.

You do, however, which is why I conjure these metaphors for your sluttery towards Conservative rapists and murderers.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I would call a "conservative" somebody like George Will, W. F. Buckley, or -- even -- John McCain.

The term has been usurped slowly since the Gingrich Congress by more extreme "Righties" growing more and more desperate.

The Right has attempted to develop their own mythology about the Roosevelt Era, the New Deal, and everything since. Among the Right, we have "Christian Conservative" or Evangelical voters of that orientation. They don't believe in biological evolution. Therefore, they could not possibly believe in social evolution or an "evolution of civilization."

Thus, they and their colleagues have leaped to the idea that institutions grown up over many decades in a three-tiered system of government have no solid basis, no logic, no validity.

And like Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries in history, they have chosen to pursue a Utopian path, suggesting that we must make change overnight. 70 years or more of history through several generations and several US Congresses are worthless. We must "drown it in a bathtub." We must subvert it from within, by sabotaging routine management of federal agencies run under statute and regulation based on statute -- the "will of the People."

Whether I'm a "Liberal" or a "Middle-of-the-Road"-er, I am supposed to look on with indifference, to see the intentional destruction of what has been called for decades the "Mixed Economy" of public goods spending and private-goods markets? The system that sustained us throughout the Cold War, in which we spent $6 Trillion and even fought a war here and there deemed now to be mistakes?

The purpose of government has always been the reduction of risk to people in the nation-state. That is obvious since Hobbes' well-quoted remark about a life that is "brutish, nasty and short." That logic sustains the "small size of government" perspective that is the essence of conservatism: a public spending devoted mostly to military and defense is an essential program of risk reduction -- to a point.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Founders intended for there to be an ongoing status-quo of gridlock. And they intended this to allow for "incremental": change as more likely than "utopian" change. With utopian change, the actual costs of making those changes can be grossly miscalculated, and those costs can become actual in the shortest time. Meanwhile, from the New Deal forward, a lot of blood, sweat and tears has been spent on establishing changes that address risk and fairness.

So don't tell me that there is some symmetric equivalence between Liberal reaction to the most disgusting person ever to appear on TV since the 1936 Berlin Games, and Conservative reaction to "Universal Health Care."

 

[Moonbeam]

Think whatever you like about TH. I have no idea what you're on about his raising chickens. Evidently he respects animals a lot more than he respects certain human beings. Here is what he once said about transgenders in the military:



I'm sorry, but I just can't see my way clear to pity him. I know you think he, and everyone else, are entirely products of circumstances beyond our control, but I also believe that people do make choices. He chooses to bombard himself with false and hateful rhetoric, chooses not to educate himself, and ultimately, he chooses to post the garbage he does on this board, while he should know what is expected when you post incoherent nonsense on any internet discussion forum where you aren't preaching to the choir.

I think his "chickens" are coming home to roost.

I think that would also be my default knee jerk position, one I do understand but reject, so I guess I pity you for your lack of choice in the matter. All that I can think to do is to ask you, given all that you say about him and assuming it's all true, why does it matter to you? How did his purported negative reality, real or not, determine your attitude toward him. Why do you not hold out for each person the notion that we were created in the image of God. Do you think he was born an ugly baby. Do you think he could hold others in contempt if he could see the infinite potential they were born with. Do you realize that your judgmental world of comparisons comes crashing down if you were to lose the rationalization that people have choice. All I can see is an inculcated and programed judgmentalism judging another similar program. You hold on dearly to what you believe out of emotional need. You too will not die to what you believe is sacred. I believe you can because I did.

A thought occurs to me. I wonder how you test on the Myers Briggs personality test thingi between judging and perceiving. I recall that I seem to split the difference from one time to the next playing around with it with a slight edge toward perceiving. I have no idea if it's relevant.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would call a "conservative" somebody like George Will, W. F. Buckley, or -- even -- John McCain.

The term has been usurped slowly since the Gingrich Congress by more extreme "Righties" growing more and more desperate.

The Right has attempted to develop their own mythology about the Roosevelt Era, the New Deal, and everything since. Among the Right, we have "Christian Conservative" or Evangelical voters of that orientation. They don't believe in biological evolution. Therefore, they could not possibly believe in social evolution or an "evolution of civilization."

Thus, they and their colleagues have leaped to the idea that institutions grown up over many decades in a three-tiered system of government have no solid basis, no logic, no validity.

And like Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries in history, they have chosen to pursue a Utopian path, suggesting that we must make change overnight. 70 years or more of history through several generations and several US Congresses are worthless. We must "drown it in a bathtub." We must subvert it from within, by sabotaging routine management of federal agencies run under statute and regulation based on statute -- the "will of the People."

Whether I'm a "Liberal" or a "Middle-of-the-Road"-er, I am supposed to look on with indifference, to see the intentional destruction of what has been called for decades the "Mixed Economy" of public goods spending and private-goods markets? The system that sustained us throughout the Cold War, in which we spent $6 Trillion and even fought a war here and there deemed now to be mistakes?

The purpose of government has always been the reduction of risk to people in the nation-state. That is obvious since Hobbes' well-quoted remark about a life that is "brutish, nasty and short." That logic sustains the "small size of government" perspective that is the essence of conservatism: a public spending devoted mostly to military and defense is an essential program of risk reduction -- to a point.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Founders intended for there to be an ongoing status-quo of gridlock. And they intended this to allow for "incremental": change as more likely than "utopian" change. With utopian change, the actual costs of making those changes can be grossly miscalculated, and those costs can become actual in the shortest time. Meanwhile, from the New Deal forward, a lot of blood, sweat and tears has been spent on establishing changes that address risk and fairness.

So don't tell me that there is some symmetric equivalence between Liberal reaction to the most disgusting person ever to appear on TV since the 1936 Berlin Games, and Conservative reaction to "Universal Health Care."

Nice post and nice to see you post.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This thread is a thing of beauty. How do you gang rape an OP that is either a troll or one of the stupidest people who has ever lived. On an anonymous internet forum? It literally makes no sense. I also fail to see what tajbots homosexual fetish has to do with anything either.

Great thread though.

Fetish? No, but i constantly see self professed progressives in this forum hypocritically gay bashing and using it to try to smear opponents and I call it out when i see it.

 

[bradly1101]

Usually, a conservative is associated with someone who resist change. With that in mind, it is nice to see progressive liberals acting like conservatives.

When it comes to just about anything having to do with changing the obama agenda, liberals act like conservatives and resist change. What are these new found conservatives afraid of? For example, the net worked just fine before 2015. Yet, listen to the progressives at Google and the sky is falling.

Talk about improving healthcare, and new found conservatives protest in droves.

Revise the tax code, new found conservatives protest.

Why are liberals flipping and becoming conservatives? Trump has an agenda, just like obama did. If people opposed the obama agenda, they were called racist. What do we call people who resist Trumps agenda? Maybe call them right wing conservatives?

When obama was bringing about change, he was considered a progressive. Now it is Trump who is the progressive and bringing about change.

Since I support Trump, does that make me a liberal? Probably so, but a right wing liberal, if there is such a thing.

So liberals, how does it feel to protest change and be a conservative?

Texashiker! You're absolutely right. The swing back to the right is resisted by the left, just as the swing back left occurred when Slobama came to dominate this country with his liberal agenda, and we will swing again, and again. Great entertainment. The voting majority as dictated by the Electoral College believes what it wants to hear, what it needs to hear, is fact.

There are of course values on both sides. The morality of the left with its social ways is up against the morality of the right with its freedom-loving ways. The winner changes with the tides. Great stuff. We all lose.

Edit: Wouldn't it be weird if "social" and "freedom-loving" were compatible?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Nice post and nice to see you post.

I had become so apoplectic with rage over the Trump presidency, I would come in here to check up on things, then see that plenty of folks were making rational posts, then decide that I felt vacant for contributing something.

But we're vindicated now. Trumpie focus-groups now show their regrets. And Trump has demonstrated his bizarre nature to a degree that our imagination of it last year was insufficient.

What worries me is this nonsense that the FBI and Russia investigation is just "political;" that it's as Trump says -- a fake news witch-hunt dreamed up by Democrats to destroy his presidency. What if he were successful in shutting down Mueller?

It is absolutely certain that Trumpie is playing right into Putin's hands. Too many data-points. Too many consistent events. I hope my expectations for 2018 after Alabama, NJ and Virginia are not dashed to the ground.

 

[Moonbeam]

I had become so apoplectic with rage over the Trump presidency, I would come in here to check up on things, then see that plenty of folks were making rational posts, then decide that I felt vacant for contributing something.

But we're vindicated now. Trumpie focus-groups now show their regrets. And Trump has demonstrated his bizarre nature to a degree that our imagination of it last year was insufficient.

What worries me is this nonsense that the FBI and Russia investigation is just "political;" that it's as Trump says -- a fake news witch-hunt dreamed up by Democrats to destroy his presidency. What if he were successful in shutting down Mueller?

It is absolutely certain that Trumpie is playing right into Putin's hands. Too many data-points. Too many consistent events. I hope my expectations for 2018 after Alabama, NJ and Virginia are not dashed to the ground.

I know no more than you do if that. I do believe, however, that with anything new, any invention that can be abused, and I am here thinking of the new reach that social media has extended to the ignorant sleeping masses that suddenly elevates their empty voices to a howling scream, the novelty will wear off to be replaced by the sober realization that they are in fact nothing but political cannon fodder for the rich. All this new felt importance to their primitive viewpoints and nothing at all in their condition will change. An altered reality is like a soap bubble. It can exist only so long as their is sufficient moisture in the film. That will dry up in hopeless jobless despair and higher taxes and national debt. Everybody knows they are being had but few know what to do about it.

I see the modern conservative movement as a puss filling blister that will eventually burst and begin to heal.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

Usually, a conservative is associated with someone who resist change. With that in mind, it is nice to see progressive liberals acting like conservatives.

When it comes to just about anything having to do with changing the obama agenda, liberals act like conservatives and resist change. What are these new found conservatives afraid of? For example, the net worked just fine before 2015. Yet, listen to the progressives at Google and the sky is falling.

Talk about improving healthcare, and new found conservatives protest in droves.

Revise the tax code, new found conservatives protest.

Why are liberals flipping and becoming conservatives? Trump has an agenda, just like obama did. If people opposed the obama agenda, they were called racist. What do we call people who resist Trumps agenda? Maybe call them right wing conservatives?

When obama was bringing about change, he was considered a progressive. Now it is Trump who is the progressive and bringing about change.

Since I support Trump, does that make me a liberal? Probably so, but a right wing liberal, if there is such a thing.

So liberals, how does it feel to protest change and be a conservative?

Conservatives do not resist change, they resist tax and spend liberalism. Conservatives have always tried to change that way of government, as far back as history records.

 

[nickqt]

The biggest hurdle in actually having any sort of rational conversation about any of this is that modern US conservatism d/b/a the Republican party is not conservatism.

It's right-wing authoritarianism that flirts with theocracy, plutocracy, and white nationalism to gain votes, in order to cut taxes and regulations on the richest people in the solar system, so they can have more money to buy up the rest of the country. It's not only not conservative, it's extremely radical.

Almost any US Democratic politician could easily fit into the conservative party in pretty much every other advanced western country on the planet. Full Stop.

The problem, is that we have a center-left party that is sane, and a radial right-wing party that has trained its base voters with doublespeak Orwellian propaganda to believe whatever it tells them to believe this week...which can totally change next week without anyone wondering why it is that what they were so pissed off about last week is OK now that their team is doing it.

Yes. The Democratic party has corruption and self-serving scumbags in it. Unfortunately, the other side is absolutely horrifying if the end-goal of government is functioning in a sane, reasonable and benevolent manner.

Democrats aren't "resisting change". They're saying no to a right-wing populist narcissist who at best should be running a mildly mediocre reality TV show. Instead, the guy is running the fucking executive branch of the largest and most powerful world Empire in all of human history.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The biggest hurdle in actually having any sort of rational conversation about any of this is that modern US conservatism d/b/a the Republican party is not conservatism.

It's right-wing authoritarianism that flirts with theocracy, plutocracy, and white nationalism to gain votes, in order to cut taxes and regulations on the richest people in the solar system, so they can have more money to buy up the rest of the country. It's not only not conservative, it's extremely radical.

Almost any US Democratic politician could easily fit into the conservative party in pretty much every other advanced western country on the planet. Full Stop.

The problem, is that we have a center-left party that is sane, and a radial right-wing party that has trained its base voters with doublespeak Orwellian propaganda to believe whatever it tells them to believe this week...which can totally change next week without anyone wondering why it is that what they were so pissed off about last week is OK now that their team is doing it.

Yes. The Democratic party has corruption and self-serving scumbags in it. Unfortunately, the other side is absolutely horrifying if the end-goal of government is functioning in a sane, reasonable and benevolent manner.

Democrats aren't "resisting change". They're saying no to a right-wing populist narcissist who at best should be running a mildly mediocre reality TV show. Instead, the guy is running the fucking executive branch of the largest and most powerful world Empire in all of human history.

Good enough. I think that says it. We have certainly been treated to enough evidence of the "phenomenon" going back to the Breitbart stings and the Shirley Sherrod frenzy.

I still do not understand people like Omarosa Manigault Newsom. You have to ask what sort of drug these people have been taking.

 

[ivwshane]

Conservatives do not resist change, they resist tax and spend liberalism. Conservatives have always tried to change that way of government, as far back as history records.

You are aware of the unnecessary tax cut Republicans are trying to push while also increasing the military budget, right?

Conservatives don't exist and they haven't since the tea party took over the Republican party.

 

[pmv]

Conservatives do not resist change, they resist tax and spend liberalism. Conservatives have always tried to change that way of government, as far back as history records.

That doesn't bear any resemblance to actual political history. The conservative tradition was precisely about valuing traditional ways of doing things and objecting to rapid change, and above all it involved being suspicious of attempts to design social and economic systems based on abstract reason rather than tradition. That's why it's called 'conservatism'. At times that included acceptance of existing 'tax and spend' policies. Your rejection of British monarchical rule was supposedly about objecting to taxation, was it not? The conservative position was to support the monarchy and the taxation that went with it.

After the industrial revolution you first had the rise of liberalism, then an increasing merger of liberalism and conservatism, as the industrialist class, that gave rise to liberalism, increasingly embraced the values of the old land-owning class, and vise-versa. So the distinction between the two has become rather confused (Thatcher was much more a liberal than a conservative)

You seem to want to use the word 'conservative' as a label for neo-liberal. Americans do love changing the English language in novel ways, but you don't get to retrospectively change the meaning of words with fantasies about 'as far back as history records'.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Truth is that any decent person who does the right thing is a conservative if they are trying to take all considerations into account placing human needs over those of the rich minority.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Truth is that any decent person who does the right thing is a conservative if they are trying to take all considerations into account placing human needs over those of the rich minority.

The needs of the many outweigh the greeds of the few

 

[Puffnstuff]

The needs of the many outweigh the greeds of the few

Couldn't you hear Spock orating this in a future ST movie?

 

[Moonbeam]

The needs of the many outweigh the greeds of the few

Not in a system where money is speech and corporations are people.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Not in a system where money is speech and corporations are people.

Yea, those decisions solidify who our country represents now

 

[Puffnstuff]

Yea, those decisions solidify who our country represents now

Very profound words brother.

 

[brycejones]

Conservatives do not resist change, they resist tax and spend liberalism. Conservatives have always tried to change that way of government, as far back as history records.

Derp

 

[Grooveriding]

I agree with the earlier poster. The GOP ideology has transcended what is traditionally conservative in other developed nations. They've gone all in on religious fanaticism, denying scientific realities, pandering exclusively to billionaires in economic-related policies and construct outright fantasies to propagate out to the indoctrinated, who willingly choose to deny observable reality because being on the right team has become more important than the self-respect derived from not allowing yourself to be lied to and played for a rube. It's become an extremist group with an increaslingly radicalized base.

 

[Jaskalas]

The Right has attempted to develop their own mythology about the Roosevelt Era, the New Deal, and everything since. Among the Right, we have "Christian Conservative" or Evangelical voters of that orientation. They don't believe in biological evolution. Therefore, they could not possibly believe in social evolution or an "evolution of civilization."

Thus, they and their colleagues have leaped to the idea that institutions grown up over many decades in a three-tiered system of government have no solid basis, no logic, no validity.

To the bolded, is there some reading material behind those words? A unifying concept you are referring to?

Second, government taxes and regulations are used as a scapegoat for why the economy is bad for workers. It is that fear of government that drives many on the right. Of course it's hypocritical when it comes to social issues, but I digress. Their view is government = bad.